« And while we're on the subject.... Henry Rollins. | Main | We could realistically stop violence by imposing more gun control, IF »
September 17, 2013
"Beatles or Stones"
is a debate that will likely rage among rock fans for as long the NSA allows such displays of open thinking among the general populace. It's pointless, though, because we've had an answer for a long time now. In the half-century-long war that pitted England's biggest hit makers against each other ... there was no winner. Like almost everything else, I blame this on the 1980s.
If everything Beatles- and Stones-related ended in the 1970s like it should have, Mick and Co. could have claimed a clear and easy victory. The Beatles imploded almost as soon as the decade started, while the Stones can count a number of their '70s albums among their best. For example, if you don't love Some Girls, you're an asshole. 5 Subtle Clues Your Favorite Band Secretly Sucks | Cracked.com
Posted by gerardvanderleun at September 17, 2013 12:42 PM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.
Your Say
Except Led Zeppelin beat them both at everything -concert revenue, record sales, etc.
Posted by: tim at September 17, 2013 1:42 PM
Stones. The Beatles were a great pop band that did some fine work at the end but the Stones have been putting quality stuff out for almost 50 years.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at September 17, 2013 1:43 PM
An independent survey by a panel of experts confirms that more Beatles music than Stones music is found :
- in elevators and waiting rooms;
- for "on hold for the next available ...";
- in nursing homes dayrooms;
- in home Karaoke kits;
- for sing-alongs at candlelight street vigils;
- The Carpenters greatest hits albums;
- the two-for-a dollar cassette bins at truck stops.
Posted by: chasmatic at September 17, 2013 3:37 PM
if you don't love Some Girls, you're an asshole.
---
I'm stealing that.
Posted by: sTevo at September 17, 2013 3:48 PM
There both sort of fossils now. I wonder how many songs will endure from either. I can listen to old Dylan, Steely Dan from the 70's , the Kinks and still like that music a lot. I guess I'd go Beatles over the Stones. The Stones were great in the sixties and early seventies but seem to be stuck playing the same song ever since.
Posted by: bill at September 17, 2013 5:55 PM
Love them both, like steak and lobster.
Posted by: .45 GAP at September 17, 2013 6:19 PM
I think my tendency to lean toward the Stones is the incredibly overblown hype around the Beatles. Overrated is an understatement. Its not that they were bad, they just weren't Mozart Christ like they are treated by people.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at September 17, 2013 7:30 PM
Completely embarrassing.
Boomer music is shit, from start to finish, and screw you, I'm a boomer, and deeply ashamed for my generation.
Mozart!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Fred Z at September 17, 2013 8:07 PM
Eight comments on "beatles vs stones" and one (and one aborted) comment on Rollins. What a bunch of geezers on this board. :)
Posted by: Jason in KT at September 18, 2013 9:18 AM
Hey, there's me and I did the item so that counts for lebenty-leben comments!
Posted by: vanderleun at September 18, 2013 11:47 AM
The Rollins piece speaks for its self, I've never understood his popularity.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at September 18, 2013 12:17 PM
As a wayward Rolling Stones listening youth I regularly got to third base with a Christian girl whose parents would only let her listen to the Beatles...So it has got to be Portishead.
Posted by: monkeyfan at September 18, 2013 2:57 PM
...Or Mighty Sparrow.
Posted by: monkeyfan at September 18, 2013 3:02 PM
Because...
Posted by: monkeyfan at September 18, 2013 3:45 PM